Just adding, All water and all fluids were made from Ymirs blood. The sky was believed to be a large dome made from Ymirs skull and the clouds where made of his brain. The “sky dome” was held up by 4 dwarfs named Norði, Austri, Vestri and Suðri (North, East, West and South)

Actually, I believe that Evolution is a religion, too. You can’t tell me that EVERY “fact” in the Evolution theory are based on repeatable, observable experiments — and not on inference/deduction/extrapolation/association/etc. Can you? If not, then you must agree that it is based somewhat on faith.

For one simple example, what exploded during the Big Bang? Where did it come from? To me, Theists believe “in the beginning there was… God.” Atheists believe “in the beginning there was… Dirt?” Both are beliefs.

The point of the infographic was to show that the mythologies make claims based on no data or evidence. Getting the most comprehensive picture of the data on evolution and the diversity of life would be probably mean picking up a textbook.

I think you are perpetuating a very common and very wrong idea about evolution that is typically used by religious apologists. The facts of evolution are only facts because they are supported with data. An evolutionary biologist would be the first to tell you that certain parts of the theory need more evidence, but major aspects like natural selection or genetic drift have enough evidence that it would literally take a suspension of the laws of nature to overturn them.

I can surely say that the facts of evolution are based on repeatable observation and experimentation. This is why the theory is so robust (has shrugged disproof for centuries). In this way we can see the differences between something like string theory and evolutionary theory. With string theory you could use the argument that you are using against evolution; much of it is in its infancy and consists of associations and extrapolations. However, for the foundations of evolutionary theory, this is not the case. Evolution is a fact as much as any other fact in science (all based on observation and experiment, not belief).

Furthermore, there is no faith required for belief in evolution. You can see the data for yourself. Take fruit fly experimentation. Given certain environmental pressures, we can see their evolution and adaption in a few short generations (a few weeks). As another example, every time you get a new flu shot, you are at the whim of viral evolution. Without adaptation, we would not need a new shot every year (or worry about anti-biotic resistance, for that matter). This does not require faith to see. There is a difference between faith and belief. You can believe in something because it is based on evidence, faith, on the other hand, is belief without evidence.

For a comprehensive review of how the universe came from nothing (i.e. there is no creator), watch this video by renowned physicist, Lawrence Krauss.

The reason that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, which is mentioned in the Wikipedia link you provided, is dark energy (which is stronger than gravity). Dark energy is yet to be fully understood, but I’m sure we will eventually figure it out. Science is shown that the universe is not bewildering, but intelligible. No faith required.

“An evolutionary biologist would be the first to tell you that certain parts of the theory need more evidence….Furthermore, there is no faith required for belief in evolution….You can believe in something because it is based on evidence, faith, on the other hand, is belief without evidence.”

Your honesty is appreciated. However, I see extreme hypocracy in your statements above. (This isn’t meant as a sound-bite gotcha! but just as an overall sense of faith in evolution.) Don’t you see it?

This is my basic point to you.

Side note: “Major aspects like natural selection or genetic drift have enough evidence that it would literally take a suspension of the laws of nature to overturn them.” This is no longer true. “Survival of the fittest” (mutation adaptation) theory has been challenged in much modern scientific literature. Here’s just one example:

“Walkingsticks come in two major forms: those with wings and those without, but both came from ancestors that had wings. Dr. Whiting began a project with undergraduate Taylor Maxwell (Burley, Idaho), to assemble a tree of life. They found that primitive walkingsticks were actually wingless, and wings were only acquired later. This was quite a shock because the distant ancestor of stick insects had wings. Our results suggested that these wings were lost and later regained. In standard evolutionary theory, you either ‘use it, or lose it'; if a particular structure no longer serves a function, then underlying gene coding will also cease to function and you cannot get the structure back again.” (http://lsmagazine.byu.edu/Issues/fall2005/darwin.aspx)

Follow Blog by Email

About the Author

Kyle Hill is a science writer and communicator who specializes in finding the secret science in your favorite fandom. His work has appeared in Wired, The Boston Globe, Scientific American, Popular Science, Discover Magazine, and more. He is a TV correspondent for Al Jazeera America's science and technology show TechKnow.